In the 2000 election, President Bush made education reform the centrepiece of his campaign. With his education reform platform - No Child Left Behind, a phrase stolen from the liberal Children's Defence Fund - Bush sought to reassure voters, particularly suburban women, that he was "a different kind of Republican", a compassionate conservative who cared about people, particularly the poor. Where previous Republican platforms called for abolishing the federal department of education, Bush called for an expansion of its powers. Where previous Republican campaigns made thinly veiled appeals to white racism, Bush was constantly photographed with smiling, school uniformed black children. And for the first time ever, it looked like Republicans might steal the education issue from the Democrats.

But what a difference eight years make. Rather than trying to demonstrate their compassion, this year's crop of Republican presidential candidates are crawling over each other to demonstrate their toughness - their lack of compassion - on immigration, torture and a host of other issues. Not surprisingly, given this dynamic, education is hardly at the forefront of Republican stump messages. John McCain's campaign website doesn't even mention education! And if you hear Republican candidates mention No Child Left Behind, it's almost certainly to criticise President Bush's signature education initiative.

Only one major Republican candidate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has anything resembling as a fully formed education plan. It's a respectable listing of moderate Republican positions - promote school choice, pay teachers for student performance, improve math and science education. The most noteworthy thing is that Romney's the only candidate in either party who defends, rather than attacks, No Child Left Behind - a gutsy move given strong opposition to the law in Iowa. Romney's playing up education more than his competitors because Massachusetts schools are among the nation's best-performing. Unfortunately for him, Massachusetts' strong student performance - and the policies that produced it - predate Romney's governorship, so he probably doesn't deserve much credit for them.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani also claim credit for education reforms under their leadership. Huckabee has some valid claims here. His administration implemented curricular reforms and raised teacher pay, and Arkansas students made real achievement gains - not just on state tests but also the more challenging National Assessment of Educational Progress - during his term as governor. Huckabee's seemingly sincere commitment to arts and music education also appeals to parents.

Such claims are a bigger stretch for Giuliani. His successor, Michael Bloomberg, got the legislature to give him control of New York's schools and, with his chancellor Joel Klein, appears to have had some success. But Giuliani as mayor had little control over his city's schools, and his efforts to claim education accomplishments only raise the question of why he didn't do, sooner, what Bloomberg did.

Giuliani has also tried to emphasise his conservative bona fides by highlighting his support for school choice. But the striking thing about his school choice platform is how limited the proposals are. Giuliani would offer vouchers to military families and students with disabilities, would support charter schools and would try to establish voucher pilot programmes in high-poverty cities. Those proposals are less sweeping than Bush's 2000 campaign proposal to provide a $1,500 voucher for every child in a low-performing school.

In fact, while school choice is probably the one education proposal all the Republican candidates can get behind, they're awfully modest in their proposals, especially compared to ideas Republican candidates routinely offered in the 1990s. Even libertarian Ron Paul, who should be more aggressive than anyone on school choice, proposes only a $5,000 tax credit for parents who homeschool or send their children to private schools. That's more modest than the education tax credit proposals that leading libertarian think tanks espouse, and that have been enacted in many states. And it would do nothing for poor kids who most need education options.

The Republican presidential candidates seem to have both repudiated President Bush's No Child Left Behind and chickened out on their previous support for school choice, leaving them without a compelling vision to offer on education. That's unfortunate, because our education policy is better when both parties have meaningful reform visions that generate serious public debate over education. Perhaps, as we move from the primaries to the general election campaign and the eventual nominee begins focusing on regular moms, dads and educators beyond his base, we'll see some more exciting Republican ideas on education. That's in everyone's interest.